Without wanting to contribute too much to the reactive nature of the already over-saturated AFL media landscape, here is my assessment of the very best and the very worst players from the first half of Round 1.
For anyone who has read any of my offerings, you will know that I attempt to distinguish myself by presenting analysis based on a unique formula I have developed to evaluate player performance.
This formula produces a single figure number that determines how many goals that player contributed in ‘real terms’.
To provide some relative understanding of the figure, it should be noted that the formula is in the form of an algorithm that provides different weighting for a range of statistical contributions.
The figure is also weighted for offensive and defensive pace.
‘Pace’ aims to acknowledge that two players with equivalent statistical contributions will have been more or less effective in real terms given the circumstances of the game and their team’s style of play.
As a reference point for the figure, an outstanding score would be three goals or more.
According to my calculations, the player with the individual highest scoring game last season was Dustin Martin with 3.49 goals of real value, from the Tigers versus GWS game.
Six players added more than three goals of value in an individual game in 2013.
They were Kane Cornes, Grant Birchall, Scott Thompson and Brent Stanton, in addition to Dustin Martin.
The best from Round 1
1. Callan Ward 2.5 goals
The very best individual player from the first half of Round 1 was Callan Ward.
Looking at his entire stat line it is clear that Ward makes his living as a typical ‘inside’ midfielder.
With 31 touches, 24 of which were contested, a goal, five tackles, five inside 50s, five rebound 50s and 11 clearances, Ward displayed the type of work ethic that, frankly, is worthy of a $10 million contract.
The fact that this type of performance came against the Swans, a team noted for that gritty style of contested play, makes his achievement even more remarkable.
2. Gary Ablett 2.45 goals
In hindsight, for Richmond, the one thing you probably shouldn’t do is make a big deal about tagging one of the AFL’s best players.
Gary Ablett isn’t that arrogant, in-your-face style champion who is likely to boast about how excellent he is in public.
However, one shouldn’t mistake his quiet professional demeanour as indicative of any sort of weakness.
It’s more like the quiet, steely calm of a person who is too fiercely determined to waste a single breath on anything other than beating you into the ground.
Think Steve Buschemi’s character in Con-Air.
Ablett’s 41 and two goals stood out, but he did a little bit of everything.
If AFL had a typical basketball-style box score, he would’ve filled every category.
Only ranked below Ward on the basis that his team was slightly less efficient both defensively and offensively.
3. Michael Barlow 2.26 goals
There will be some who argue that Barlow was not even the best player for his team, let alone in the first round.
Additionally, in the biggest margin of the round some might argue his performance was less significant.
Put in perspective, however, as terrible as some may argue Collingwood were, the midfield battle in that match was still reasonably competitive.
Early in the game Fremantle were smashed for clearances all over the ground and ultimately only out-possessed Collingwood by seven touches, including losing the contested possession count.
Barlow’s ability to put on the pressure (he laid nine tackles) and work both ways (five inside 50s, a goal and four rebound 50s) kept them close early.
Of 29 total possessions he had 13 uncontested and 16 contested.
Players who typically earn mostly contested possessions are often forgiven for inefficient disposal, but Barlow had a 75per cent efficiency rate and only one direct turnover.
His work in tandem with Aaron Sandilands is excellent and with the likes of Nathan Fyfe and David Mundy his side, Fremantle, are going to be really hard to beat.
The Worst from Round 1
It seems a little bit schadenfreude (did I use that correctly?) to revel in acknowledging the players who contributed the least to their teams over the weekend, but what the hell hey!
Let’s reactively write off some careers on the basis of one ordinary game.
1. Lewis Roberts-Thompson -0.03
In case you didn’t notice that’s a little negative symbol beside LRT’s score.
You read it correctly, the Swans big man actually cost his team, albeit very slightly, and was a net drain on the Swans performance.
After I ran my formula on this game, I thought ‘didn’t he take a good contested mark inside 50? He can’t have been that bad?’.
As it turns out he did have a contested mark, it was one of three marks in total, which led to three of his four disposals, of which one was effective.
He was subbed out so maybe it’s harsh to declare him worse than someone who played an entire game but with 75per cent game time he was still on the ground for a long time.
I suppose the problem with these versatile ‘swingmen’ is that when they play well they look like they can play any position, and when they’re poor they look they don’t belong anywhere.
2. Jack Riewoldt 0.02
On the surface of his stat line you might not immediately call Riewoldt one of the worst performers of the whole weekend.
His nine touches yielded three shots at goal (one goal and two behinds) and he laid four tackles.
At the end of the day if he had kicked three goals maybe you would evaluate his game in a different light.
Nevertheless, what actually did happen was Jack making a lot of mistakes.
Five turnovers on less than 50per cent disposal efficiency, for a forward who only had it nine times and kicked a solitary goal, equals being totally ineffective.
On top of this, Richmond had 406 possessions (32 more than the opposition) and 58 inside 50 entries (10 more than the opposition).
This superiority somehow translated into only 69 points.
Even if Tyrone Vickery at times appeared to be targeted more directly, the Tigers still gave their forwards opportunity.
He had it kicked to him four times more often than Riewoldt inside 50, so Riewoldt can’t really complain for lack of opportunity.
3. Jeff Garlett 0.05
I have to confess that I didn’t watch this game, and that upon viewing the game stats I had assumed Garlett was subbed out.
Apparently not.
It probably isn’t acceptable to Carlton supporters to simply write Garlett off as an inconsistent player.
Unless you’re kicking 50 goals plus per season as a small forward you can’t justify not being able to play in the midfield also.
Garlett has teased from time to time with the prospect of stepping up to a midfield role but never fully established himself in that part of the ground.
The equation for Garlett is simple: either he finds more of the ball away from goal or he needs to kick about three a game, on average, as a permanent forward.
Otherwise he is essentially dead weight and the blues would be far better off trying a young midfielder in his place.
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.
The former Collingwood president says the Kangaroos need to 'stand for something' not just on the field but in the community or risk being…
The All-Australian player has been below his best this year, and Matthew Lloyd has suggested that he be moved more into the midfield to…
The AFL need a more simple approach to high contact and one that makes players accountable, regardless of intent.
He and Hawthorn coach Sam Mitchell do not like having a player to sub on and would rather have an extra player available on…
The Footy Classified commentator says people should give Jason Horne-Francis credit for what the young star does for Port Adelaide in key moments -…
What is the pass mark for a number one draft pick? Harley Reid still needs to prove his long-haul value before he is worth multimillion-dollar contracts.
